03/16/2008

Well, yesterday marked the beginning of my spring break. By 'yesterday,' I mean 'Saturday,' as I find myself now writing at about 1:30 in the morning. This after an evening spent under the heavy influence of both beer and good company. Not in that particular order, of course.

For you, dear reader, this means that I'm going to be free this week to spend some quality time catching up with you on all the stuff that I haven't be able to write about since the Spring Semester began. Things like personal finance and personal freedom.

I'm rather looking forward to tomorrow, when I'll have enough time to myself to start crafting some fiction-ey non-fiction for you. I'm not saying you should check back tomorrow, but, then, some of you are gluttons for punishment - so maybe I'll see you then?

01/22/2008

He overdosed on pills and had a resulting heart attack. Suicide, perhaps? Seems like at the age of 28 with a multi-million dollar future ahead of you, suicide would be the last thing on your mind. That or it was just an overdose.

01/19/2008

I'm a registered independent in the state of California - which means that I'm unable to vote for the Republican primary nominee, but I am allowed to vote for the Democratic nominee. As this is the case, I figured it would make some sense for me to do my third candidate analysis on John Edwards, a current contender for the Democratic nomination.

Interesting fact about John Edwards (if not a well-known fact): he ran as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 alongside John Kerry for the Democratic party. Another interesting fact: they are no longer speaking to each other. Of course, when you'd have to deal with a wife like Teresa Kerry, I don't think I'd want to be stuck hanging around with John after the party is over, either.

Getting right down to brass tacks, the three most important issues facing a potential John Edwards candidacy (besides establishing a national budget for his haircuts) are as follows:

Illegal Immigration

War in Iraq (War on Terror)

Shrinking the Federal Government

As I mentioned in my Fred Thompson post, it's imperative that America reign in the spending of the federal government in order to reign in the ever-growing habit of creating intrusive domestic policy. John Edwards and I apparently disagree. This guy has run his entire campaign on the idea that there exists 'two Americas.' One is privileged and wealthy while the other lives 'from paycheck to paycheck.' Curiously, it appears that John is under the impression that the latter America, although already supported by the heavy taxation of the prior, needs the federal government to help them change. Or, to paraphrase, redistribute the wealth. If you've been reading here long enough, then you are aware of my attitude about the current tax system in America. Electing someone like John Edwards is only going to exacerbate the problem. His approach involves 'college for everyone' programs that create scholarships for anyone heading off to college, forcing businesses to supply healthcare to employees, and rolling back tax cuts that happen to be some of the few things that Bush has actually done right in his time in office.To be honest, Edwards is a complete failure on this point - he appears to be under the impression that the answer to all our ills is to strengthen the federal government and its involvement in your life. Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

Next, there's the War in Iraq.Edwards is the epitome, on this issue, of the type of politician that we absolutely don't need in Washington pulling the strings. Using Iraq as a platform on which to run with John Kerry back in 2004, likely to prove their support of the military, Edwards made statements like this next one: "It was the right thing to do to give the president the
authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a
very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I]
stand behind our vote on the resolution." However, upon seeing the negative polls when it came to our work in Iraq, he immediately changed his mind on the matter. He now, according to his website, wants to have our troops pulled out completely within the ten months of being elected. Sadly, putting a war into motion isn't exactly something that you can stop on a dime with. His plan to withdraw troops so completely and so quickly would lead to a total power vacuum in the region - something that we definitely don't want to return to when it comes to cleaning it up.

Finally, on the most important topic that he'd be facing as president, Edwards, again, fails miserably. According to his campaign website, we need to immediately adopt 'comprehensive immigration reform.' "It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million
people. Edwards believes we need to give people here the opportunity to
pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship." What's so brilliant about this statement is his pushing of the argument that the only other option would to be deport millions of people. This makes him either ignorant of the reality of the situation or a liar. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and merely call him ignorant on this point. As I've mentioned previously, nobody needs to deport anyone. Illegal aliens who can't get jobs will deport themselves - enforcing laws having to do with who hires who is more important than teaching anyone english or paying a fine. Adopting the poverty of Central and South America won't help America in the slightest.

John Edwards is obviously unaware of the most important issues facing the next person to sit at the helm of the American machine. He's not winning my vote, and I certainly hope he's not going to be picking up yours.

01/16/2008

Thanks to theSixtyOne.com, I stumbled across The Devil Makes Three last week and have been playing their track, 'Old Number Seven,' on repeat ever since. This song alone convinced me that I absolutely had to purchase a copy of the full CD. And Amazon.com, proving yet again why iTunes and their DRM problems are a thing of the past, was kind enough to provide me with the full downloaded album within minutes for the reasonable price of $9.99.

I hate the use the term 'rockabilly' because I end up conjuring up images of one those guys with a pack of cigarettes rolled into his sleeve on one arm and his fat girlfriend hanging on the other. However, it seems that this is the style that most people are labeling this band with. Personally, I'd call it 'folk-rock-blues' or 'alternative-country,' but I also happen to hate the type of people who spend hours trying to come up with some kind of clever music-label hybrid genre (mostly because I used to be one of those people).Whatever it is that you would label The Devil Makes Three, it's awesome.

Lyrically, this song is about drinking whiskey in heaven. Jack Daniels whiskey, to be precise. Personally, I'm not much of a whiskey guy, but this is the kind of tune that makes you want to pick a fight before pulling up to the bar to demand a glass. Whether you would actually win a bar fight is your problem, it's the song that's important.

Give it a listen, would ya? I don't really have much more to say on the matter because I want to get back to listening to the full album, now. And maybe picking a fight while I do it.

01/14/2008

I've made an update to the first of my 2008 presidential candidate reviews, the post about Ron Paul. I was reading through it, boring as it was, and realized that I'd not gone back to update it at all regarding the controversy that has started to come to light in recent weeks regarding his newsletters. If you're at all interested, it's about three quarters of the way through the post.

The next requested candidate that I'm analyzing is Fred Thompson. I'll be crossing over into Democratic side of the aisle in the next review post, I promise. In the meantime, if you've got any input on the content that you find here on this candidate, please speak up in the comments. The update listed above was actually made in part because of a comment that was made on that post - and I even credited the commenter! Now wouldn't you just love to have that kind of political power?

As far as interesting facts on Fred Thompson: he has worked not only as an attorney, lobbyist, and senator, but also as a character actor. Most notably (to me, that is) was his work on 'Law & Order.' I didn't necessarily watch the show, but I still recognized his face the first time I saw it when it was suggested that he might be running in 2008. As a matter of fact, it's been speculated that his May 30, 2007 departure from filming was to begin working on his presidential bid.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, the three most important issues facing Americas next president are as follows:

Illegal Immigration

War in Iraq (War on Terror)

Shrinking the Federal Government

When I refer to 'shrinking the federal government' I mean both in policy and financially. In all honesty, I think that shrinking the federal government economically should be a higher priority than the current policy structure that involves the slow evolution of a government nosing into every aspect of a citizen's life. That being said, Thompson doesn't seem to disagree that the current financial growth-capacity of the federal government is getting too advanced. In an interview on Fox News back in June, he stated that "we have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for
our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and
makes us less competitive in the world." He went even further with his commentary two months earlier at Lincoln Club Dinner. "Taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from
investing & taking risks.
Some economists have calculated that today each additional $1 collected
by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private
sector as much as $2 worse off. To me this means one simple thing: tax
rates should be as low as possible." Few people seem to realize that higher taxes on those 'evil' corporations that haunt every San Francisco nightmare scenario are actually crippling our nation as a whole. Want to complain about outsourcing? Talk to our elected representatives about their tax policies. If you were looking at higher profits by something so simple as moving your headquarters offshore, wouldn't you make the jump? I know I would. Thompson seems to understand that.

Thompson and I share more in common than just a penchant for cutting taxes and the spending that inspires them - he also seems pretty dead-set on finishing the job that's been started in Iraq. During a debate back in October 2007, he pointed out, correctly, that "clearly...we didn't go in with enough troops and we didn't know what to
expect when we got there. But now we're showing signs
of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that
we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to
have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would
make for a more dangerous USA."

I don't want to sound like I'm falling over myself trying to come up with reasons not to pledge my vote for this guy, but I kind of am. He sounds reasonable and responsible, two things that are definitely needed in Washington at the moment. But what about illegal immigration? Good question. In researching this guy, I found conflicting statements. On the one hand, he appears to be supportive of securing the borders and ending illegal immigration through that means (which, lets have a reality check here, certainly won't end all illegal immigration). However, he doesn't appear to address the possibility of pushing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens and, instead, just offers vague conclusions that involve self-deportation with little details. While he opposed the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco from this past summer, he does suggest that "you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can
have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s
unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."On this issue, in particular, I think he's headed in the right direction, but I fear that he's not there yet.

When it comes to controversies attached to Thompson, there was something of an uproar over his role as a pro-choice lobbyist for a short stint back in the 90s. Personally, I don't see this as a massive problem and really couldn't dig up anything more.

Ultimately, I think that Fred Thompson has a lot of potential. His stance on other issues, mostly domestic, I have a generally positive feeling about, but nothing concrete. The portrayal of him as a lazy politician seems to be damaging him slightly, as the people who supported him originally are slowly starting to lose faith in him following his poor performances in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I definitely like the guy, but he'll have to make it to nomination before I'd ever been convinced to vote for him.

01/13/2008

Whenever I start to consider the coming day when humanity will face its most dangerous foe yet, I often assume that I'll be sitting comfortably at home, cleaning a shotgun and sipping bottled water for a couple of days before I'll really need to get moving. However, the sad reality of it is that the zombie outbreak isn't going to be timing itself based on my whereabouts. I could be out on the freeway, at the zoo, at a friends house, or even at work. Luckily, the kind folks over at the Zombie Squad already thought of this last scenario and have ensured that you've got plenty of pointers should you be one of the unlucky ones soiling your cubicle in terror on that horrible day.

The highlights:

Have a weapon on you at all times.

"A human without a gun has a name in Zombie Squad. His name is 'Lunch.'"

You should also always have a Bug Out Bag on you. (for more on BOBs, click here)

"If you’re expecting the shit to hit the fan at 3:00 on a Sunday
afternoon, odds are it’ll be 11:30 Monday morning. That’s just the way
it works. Maybe you should have a second bug out bag in your trunk."

Store water in any way possible (even metal filing cabinets).

"You don’t know when that tap will stop working so, get as much out of it as you can."

Sure, the article itself is almost a year old - but the threat looms ever nearer. It's a quick read, so give it a look. You should probably also spend some time at the Zombie Squad site perusing more of their stuff. You'll thank me later - once the internet has come back online, of course.

01/09/2008

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election. If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

Illegal Immigration

War in Iraq (War on Terror)

Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse. Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to. "When the federal government spends more each year
than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise
taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit
politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans." How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it? Cut out the spending, of course. "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom
is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be
debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the
budget should exist at all."Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes. Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected. This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy. However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo. In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot
get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased"
withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial
disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence
across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as
the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits,
and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly:
"An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that
shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist
operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A
premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable
horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If
America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror
will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy
will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home. We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not. On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration. Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests. And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it? "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We
encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people
who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They
bankrupt our hospitals.
Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you
don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get
rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants
wouldn't be a threat to us." Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues. The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into. However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they? Ron Paul is no different. As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s. Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye. James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther
King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,"
"seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil
rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists
who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that
"Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were
better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp,
if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of
forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it
was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects,
or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters
little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about. Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider. Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent. Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency. However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate. I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency. Too bad.

01/08/2008

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election. Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special. Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision. Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up. That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

Illegal Immigration

War in Iraq (War on Terror)

Shrinking the Federal Government

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc. I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either. My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin. My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries. If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse. And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole). Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now. Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it. So what to do about it? Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force. If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there. Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential. End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead. The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate. A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly. The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long. It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president. It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important. If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow. Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

01/07/2008

Does this picture make your heart melt a little bit? Does it make you want to find a puppy somewhere, any puppy, and squeeze it until its eyes pop out of its adorable little head? How about taking a trip to the animal shelter and immediately adopting every dog that you laid your eyes on?

Well, would you be shocked if I were to tell you that the curled up, sleeping sack of cute you see to the left is none other than a coyote? That's right, not man's best friend. In fact, a farmer's worst nightmare.Or, a farmer's cutest nightmare.

Over the last few weeks, I've been keeping tabs on the blogging over at The Daily Coyote, and I thought it about time that I fessed up to my distinctly non-masculine habit. You see, I got hooked with pictures like the one you see here and I haven't been able to stop since. I haven't really done too much digging on the matter, but the blog appears to be run by a young woman who goes by the name 'Shreve.' She also just happens to be living the dream (hence, her incorporation into an otherwise un-manly 'Choose Your Own Adventure' post).

From what I can gather so far, she decided, one day, to move from San Francisco to New York City. Purchasing a Vespa scooter and a camera, she blogged and photographed the entire way across. Upon arriving in NYC, however, she'd come to realize that it just wasn't the place for her and promptly turned around and moved to a sleepy little town in Wyoming that she'd passed through earlier. At some point in April, the young coyote you see above, was brought to her after its parents had been shot for killing sheep and he has, since then, been raised by Shreve.

Personally, I think I'd just be happy to be living somewhere as visually appealing as the Wyoming territory that she inhabits, but raising a coyote puppy? Come on! Who wouldn't want to take on this as an adventure?!

As Charlie, the coyote, ages, he is slowly losing that desperately huggable puppiness that drew me in originally. On the other hand, he appears to be attaining more and more of that wild drive that you'd expect to find in his brethren, which more than makes up for whatever cute-factor pulled me into reading about his life with Shreve in the first place. I definitely encourage you to take a look at the blog and, if you can turn down those pleading blue coyote-puppy eyes, then you're more of a man than I.

And, now that I've actually used the phrase 'desperately huggable puppiness,' I think I'm going to go shotgun a beer and frag some aliens in Half-Life 2. Jeez.

01/06/2008

After a taking a little time off, I've come to realize that flooding the internet with my own brand of nonsense ranting and personal prejudices is really the type of thing that I should embrace with more urgency. If I'm not out there, creating more Google-fodder on a regular basis, then where's the stuff going to come from? Would you rather be picking your way around Buckaroos Funny Pictures? How about BloggingCat.com?

Yes, that's right, those webpages are real. And they exist to remind us that no matter what I may have to say on the internet, at least you're reading my drivel instead of surfing around a webpage dedicated to funny pictures or the life of a house cat.

So, here's to 2008 being a year in which I get back into my writing habit. I have very few habits that I think I should be embracing, but this is one of them. Since I started out here back in October of 2006, I've noticed that I'm more likely to write down my thoughts while I'm out and about. I'm more likely to do interesting things when given the option - specifically so that I can come back here and document them. Yes, I might go so far as to suggest that this little Vox experiment of mine has pushed me into a more adventurous state of mind.

I'm looking forward to making an even bigger mess of 2008. I hope you'll stick around to see it.